Just in case you wanted to remind yourself once again how lucky we are to have such a great state Attorney General, why not take a look at Tom Horne and team’s legal filing this week with federal court that by golly the reason Arizona can’t have marriage equality is they can’t produce children “at least not without the help of a third person.”
Ok, ok, so sarcasm … Here’s the legal file and keep it in mind this election season:
From Capitol Media Services’ Howard Fischer:
Attorneys for the state are telling a federal judge there’s a good reason Arizona won’t let gays marry: They can’t reproduce, at least not without the help of a third person.
Papers filed in federal court defending the ban say voters, in approving the constitutional amendment in 2008, are entitled to “define marriage for their community.” But the lawyers also are arguing to U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick there’s a public purpose in the state getting into the business of regulating private relationships: Ensuring that children are, whenever possible, raised by a biological mother and biological father.
“Only man-woman couples are capable of furthering the state’s interest in linking children to both of their biological parents,” argued attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom. And they said the vast majority of such couples produce their own biological children.
But gay marriages, the lawyers said, “do not advance that compelling state interest” because they “can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father.” About the closest they can come, the legal papers argue, is by involving a third person who will be a biological parent.
This article appears in Jul 24-30, 2014.
I see no hogwash in the above legal filing!
That’s a mindbogglingly sad and completely ludicrous argument. It is also a fine example of just what kind of Attorney General Tommy has been for Arizona.
Of course, I’m sure Mr. Horne would also oppose marriages of the impotent, barren, infirm and elderly on the same grounds.
So by Horne’s “logic”, My wife and I should not be allowed to be married because we are not going to have children. Since I guess since we ” “do not advance that compelling state interest” because we “can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father.”
Why is it a “compelling state interest” that a couple has biological children?
What does this mean for couples who adopt–will this now become illegal based upon Horne’s crazy argument?
Tom Horne is an idiot.
Tom Horne is a total embarrassment to the state. He and his compadre John Huppenthal rode to power on the destruction of a perfectly good and functioning program of studies in TUSD by marshaling the far right wing’s racism. Now he is apparently working on homophobia as a wedge issue. As has been mentioned in these comments, his despicable net also captures those who don’t want or can’t have children, those who adopt, etc. etc. etc. I would like to know how much money that could be spent on other things has been spent on ridiculous legal briefs like the one mentioned above.
I remember in the 60s that the Pope declared the purpose of marriage was to bear children. At the time, I considered that strange since then by that definition no one could marry who was not planning on procreation. Did that mean that elderly people and infertile women and men should not marry? As a student of history, I recall that marriage has historically throughout time been about property, the acquisition thereof of power. Children cemented that power through inheritance rights. No love and romance involved at all. Horne is as usual seriously off base. I also consider that marriage is a civil institution which again is about business and property, but that religious marriage seeks to imbue that contractual arrangement with emotion and religious vows. I like that choice for those who want it. Remember Princess Grace had a civil marriage in Monaco and then had the great cathedral ceremony for religious purpose.
As long as the AZ Democratic party is committed to open borders, we will continue to have idiots like Tom Horne elected.
I think Tom Horne-y needs to get his own house in order before he judges the houses of others. He isn’t an AG Arizona can be really proud of.
Like it or not Horne was elected by the people of Arizona who cared enough to vote the last time he ran. I agree that he has been a pretty bad attorney general, but the way things work in a democracy (or democratic republics for those who would nitpick over whether we are a democracy or a republic) is that candidates must win elections. If his campaign does not resonate with voters he will lose…either in the primary or the general election. But it is a mistake to think that he will lose because most Arizona voters disagree with his political positions. On the contrary, it will be his unethical behaviors that are far more likely to lead to the end of his electoral winning streak.